Short answer: yes. It’s forbidden in France to engage in “hate speech,” which includes anti-Semitic remarks. Denial of the Holocaust is a crime across much of Europe, including France and Germany. This week the odious French comedian Dieudonné was arrested for saying that he felt not like Charlie Hebdo, but like “Charlie Coulibaly,” a reference to jihadist gunman Amédy Coulibaly who killed four people in a kosher grocery store. Dieudonné is a notorious anti-Semite, who performs a kind of Nazi salute during his performances and whose shows have been banned by the French government.
Should he have been arrested or censored? Nope. It’s hypocritical to prohibit making fun of some religionists but allowing some (as did Charlie Hebdo) to make fun of others. Yes, anti-Semitism, which is a criticism not of Judaism but of Jews, differs from simple criticism of Islam (the goal of Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons), but too bad. It’s too hard to make that distinction when it comes to “hate speech,” for criticism of religion is often taken as criticism of believers. And, as Christopher Hitchens once said, denial of the Holocaust forces us to re-examine precisely what the hard evidence for the Holocaust is, and so even if it’s seen as anti-Semitic it should not be banned. I respect the hurt feelings of Jews no more than I respect the hurt feelings of Muslims.
I am a hard-liner when it comes to free speech: I think that no speech should be banned or criminalized save speech meant to incite imminent violence. And I think Europe needs to truly embrace its democratic aspirations by decriminalizing “hate speech.” Yes, I’m aware that those laws come from a traumatic past and a sensitivity to newly-arriving cultural minorities. But it’s time to deep-six the hypocrisy that pervades the speech laws of Europe.
I am saying this because, though I thought my views were obvious, I’ve received several snarky emails this week from people who tell me that I’m a hypocrite because, as a secular Jew, I must surely agree with the French laws against anti-Semitic speech and yet defend the right to criticize Islam. One person, for example, sent me this cartoon:
And I also got this email, requesting that I “comment” but actually implicitly calling me out for hypocrisy:
Hi Prof Coyne
Thank you for reading this email. Can you comment on this article, in light of the recent discussions on free speech?
Thank you.
[name redacted]
Slim speaks for me.
b&
Ditto
When a person deliberately yells, “Fire!” in a crowded theater, he is not “inciting imminent violence”, yet his actions might result in injury, or even death, to many- how do we approach this behavior so far as establishing a basis for “criminalizing” it, without putting limits on “freedom of speech”?
I’m not trying to be critical, here; just pointing out that the situation is not all black and white: many people are arrested each year for “disturbing the peace” and this often involves the spoken word. There’s a difference between walking down the street saying, in a conversational tone, “All XXXXX (enter your choice) are assholes”, and walking down the street yelling it. But- who gets to decide at what “volume-level” the “peace” is actually disturbed, and upon what criteria is THAT based?
If someone starts a rumor that a certain Chinese restaurant is serving cat meat, which results in a loss of income for the restaurant, was that under the heading of “inciting imminent violence”? How could a person be charged for this without it being linked to, “He said something that he shouldn’t have.?
That was brilliant, Jerry! I’m with you 100%.
+ 1.
And I’ve expressed my opposition to the French laws on my own website recently.
+ 2
I can never understand how so many people can’t seem to comprehend the real meaning of free speech. There are no buts about it.
This is how you respond to hate speech with words and actions.
Dan Ackroyd offered to personally bend into a swastika any Nazi who was interested in looking their best for the Illinois march back in 1979.
One of my all-time favorite movies.
Elwood: It’s 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it’s dark… and we’re wearing sunglasses.
Jake: Hit it.
Imagine me playing the guitar and: She caught the Katy, and left me a mule to ride … (homage to Taj!)
“Shake it, shake it, shake it, baby!”
I haven’t seen that movie in so long.
/@
I just *love* the pile-up near the end. 150 cop cars in a ginormous heap 😉
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMagP52BWG8
It appeals to my subversive streak…
I loved Aretha as the waitress and Ray C. as the stereo store owner.
I never thought of the mid-70s Burnt Orange Ford Pinto Wagon as being in league with the Illinois Nazis but I saw it right there with them in the video!
Libel, slander, false testimony, and fraudulent claims – especially about health and nutrition product efficacy – are not protected speech, because they cause harm. The problem of course comes in the definition of terms, and the threat of legal action can have a muzzling effect on speech. One of the best things we have going on America is the protection of satire and the tradition that “public figures” do not enjoy the same protection against slander that a “private person” does.
In the US you have to prove malicious intent in the first two for it to be a crime. Which is nearly impossible to do, so we allow a lot of speech that other countries would consider libelous or slanderous. IMO good for us, bad for them.
As for the threat of legal action, 28 states have regulations against SLAPPs. Here’s hoping that in the next decade we make it an even 50.
Good post, Jerry. Here’s hoping any critics of yours who come here actually pay attention to it.
Especially because libel laws protect the people that can afford to sue (the rich) based on “speech” which causes potential loss of earnings, I mean “offence”. So the rich can sue the poor man on the street for calling him a douchebag (even if he is one), while as John Oliver notes, the poor are peddled products by the rich that can pretty much say anything they like (think Pom wonderful and the magic of antioxidants) even if the claims are a load of hogwash:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V618uw3q-xE
So, basically the way free speech is structured is to ensure that the rich can make money off the poor whilst the poor cannot criticise those that make off of them.
*make money from them (bad grammar, sorry!)
*make money off of them (sorry, bad grammar!)
In other words, the way everything else is structured and always has been. Great comment – and I love John Oliver!
Love the Pomeranians label!
I didn’t know John Oliver. Spent the whole morning watching his videos. That man is blerry funny. Tears in my eyes.
Not since Edward Currant and George Carlin….
Thank you, thank you, thank you, Kirykowicz , you made -and ruined (as in ruining my programme)- my day.
I want to commend you for having such a thick skin when it comes top hateful comments/e-mails. I wish everybody would spin such hate and turn it into something positive, like you did in this great post.
I second that emotion.
The man’s a publishing scientist. Getting irrational rejections by idiots who ought to know better is part of our SOP. Getting charged for the privilege of receiving them…that’s the real crime. 😉
Ha!
I’m with you all the way, sir. As you quoted Rushdie in your latest article: “No on has a right to not be offended.”
The antidote to bad speech is more good speech.
It would be a lot easier if the Jewish race and the Jewish religion were not called the same thing. Making fun or criticism of a religion is free speech while making fun of or criticism of a race is hate speech. This is the line in the sand and too many crosses it.
There’s no such thing as a Jewish race, at least as a genetically distinct or semi-distinct entity. But even if they were a genetic group, like Inuits, I wouldn’t be in favor of calling them names or making fun of them.
Indeed. We save that sort of thing for the Irish.
b&
With respect, I think that’s slightly off the point. If you substitute ‘people who self-identify as Jews’ or any other definition for Jewish ‘race’, the awkwardness would still exist.
That is, if I say ‘Muslims are deluded’ it relates obviously to religious Islam-followers. If I say ‘Jews are deluded’ it’s not clear which group I’m referring to. I think that’s the difficulty thethisguy is referring to.
It may be hateful speech but its not a hate crime in the US. For it to be illegal, you have to do something already illegal; the ‘hate’ part is then considered when figuring out the seriousness of the crime. If there’s no illegal act, your nasty speech is legal.
So making fun of a race is perfectly legal here, and IMO does not cross any legal line in the sand. I’ll agree it’s nasty and often (if not always) crosses lines in the sands of decency.
I should reiterate: the above applies to the US. Different countries will have different legal definitions.
I agree in my support of free speech. That being said the problem I had with the above cartoon was it’s being used as a comparison to the outrage against the CH attack. CH’s cartoons weren’t about Muslims, they were against Islam. The cartoon implies otherwise, and supports the idea that criticism directed at Islam is just thinly veiled racism directed at brown people who make up much of the Muslim population.
I should have added that I first saw that cartoon when it was reprinted by Glenn Greenwald, who was making the exactly the argument I pointed out above. That CH’s cartoons were Islamaphobic attacks synonymous with racist attacks against Jews.
Your interpretation seems skewed by the context in which you first saw them.
Take this opportunity to educate yourself:
http://m.dailykos.com/story/2015/01/11/1357057/-The-Charlie-Hebdo-cartoons-no-one-is-showing-you
I think you misread my comment. Please reread, and if you don’t think so could you please clarify?
It’s unfortunate that Professor Ceiling Cat sees criticism of Islam as an attack on those who believe what is being criticized. It’s also strange to see PCC redefining antisemitism as being against just Judaism, given how the Nazi practice of antisemitism affected more than just practicing Jews. Its sad to see that kind of unsupported redefinition/restriction of the term, when PCC has it so right on so many other issues….
When I hear the term antisemitism I don’t think of it as describing hatred of Judaism, and those who practice it, though I guess technically it’s that as well, but hatred of people who are caricatured as being greedy moneylenders with big noses, and fat lips.
It’s that type of antisemitism that Glenn Greenwald, in the above mentioned article, compared with the Charlie Hebdo’s satire directed at Islam, and called a double standard. Greenwald clearly believes that criticism of Islam is mostly racially motivated.
One is making fun of a religion, the other is making fun of people’s physical characteristics, and stereotyping them.
It’s unfortunate that you didn’t read the OP more carefully.
“I am a hard-liner when it comes to free speech: I think that no speech should be banned or criminalized save speech meant to incite imminent violence.”
Hate speech (definition): In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
Hate speech is just a way of saying someone’s feelings were hurt. That’s what civil courts are for. Incitement to violence means that there was a call to arms for immediate action.
If what you said were true, it would mean that writing a negative online review of a book you’ve read could be construed as hate speech.
According to your definition, a negative review that disparaged the author because of his race and so caused prejudicial action against him (loss of book sales) would be hate speech. The incitement is an or clause; according to your quoted definition, you don’t need incitement for something to qualify as hate speech.
I consider that legally overbroad. Though if you want to distinguish hate speech from hate crimes, I’d likely agree its legal, hateful, speech.
Of course it would be hate speech. What does the author’s race have to do with his or her writing prowess?
The author’s race could (speaking theoretically here) certainly have to do with the bias of the author and conceivably the accuracy of the author’s recounting of events. If that were the case, then writing a review that drew attention to that fact could well be entirely justified, even if it was prejudicial to the author’s interests.
“One person, for example, sent me this cartoon:”
I believe that this cartoon misrepresents what Charlie Hebdo stands for. As different sources reported that the magazine doesn’t discriminate when it comes to making fun of different religions.
And what is more, the CH magazine isn’t being muzzled by the French law.
Not long after 9/11, I was listening to the NPR show “On the Media,” and they were talking about a French author who had written negatively about Muslims, and fallen afoul of the government. They had a French lawyer on who began to answer a question with “The Law of the Freedom of the Press prohibits….” There’s your problem right there.
A quick glance at the Constitution of 1958 and its amendments shows that there is no constitutional provision for free-speech. There is merely a reference to the Declaration of the Rights of Man of 1789, which itself limited speech with the provision that a person has freedom of expression, “…but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law.”
As a French, I feel like providing a bit more depth about our laws. First, generally speaking, public slander and insult can be prosecuted (note that the window is very short: 3 months after the publication or the airing, it’s too late).
The law then further singles out any public discourse which is discriminatory, hateful, or incite violence toward any person or any group of persons because of their place of birth, ethnie, nationality, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, handicap, and I may forget about a few (the delay of prescription is longer than 3 months iirc). Thus anti-semitism is as illegal as islamophobia. For example, a prominent figure of the French jewish scene, Arno Klarsfeld, has just announced he was indicted because of a slander aimed at the whole muslim community (so it looks like, we don’t know all the details yet).
Finally, denying crimes against humanity is a specific offense. This includes not only the Shoa but also the Armenian genocide and it would cover the genocide in Rwanda, which nobody would deny in his right mind of course (but I have no doubt some will do so in a few centuries).
In the light of this, with due respect, your post feels quite partial and biased to me.
Yeah, its the first two (is discriminatory; is hateful) people like me disagree with. No problems with the third. Though frankly, incitement should not need a long list of groups it is illegal to do against; it should be illegal to incite violence period, no list of groups needed. So, if I had to rework your law, it would be this: “the law then further singles out any public discourse which incites violence toward any person.”
I disagree with that too. So once some idiot in government declares some event a crime against humanity, nobody is allowed to say he got his facts wrong? And you don’t see the abuse and problems that could engender?
I’d rather everyone be allowed to put their idiocies on the table. We should be investigating history, not sacralizing it.
“In the light of this, with due respect, your post feels quite partial and biased to me.”
How, exactly? Your post doesn’t look like a defense to me, but rather provides evidence for Jerry’s point.
Jerry wrote that “It’s hypocritical to prohibit making fun of some religionists but allowing some (as did Charlie Hebdo) to make fun of others.”
This is not an accurate descriptions of French laws, as I explained. Or any European laws for that matter.
This is even more misconstrued because the law leaves quite a bit to be interpreted by the judge and this creates a lot of leeways (this brings another important point in passing actually as there is never any a priori censorship: only after a publication or a performance can a legal case be put forward).
I was born in 68 and for as long as I can remember, judges have decided it was perfectly fine to poke fun at will at any religion or more generally any idea in any publication. It is even legal to poke fun at groups of people, providing it stays within the bounds of decency. To give you a feel for it, and moving from the issue or religion to that of racism, a satirist faking accents typical of some groups, making fun of their culinary habits (this is a serious matter in France!), or mocking some of their characteristic state of mind is fine too. For example, it is perfectly acceptable for a satirist to dress as an orthodox jew, or to fake the accent of people of north-african origin. He could be prosecuted if he insisted on all jews being greedy, and all north-african being violent e.g.
But let’s come back to the matter at stake: Charlie Hebdo. In 2012, they were brought to court for the publication of the now infamous Danish cartoons. The judge dismissed the case but he made one very interesting comment that got very little attention even in France. The judge had an issue with only one cartoon: that of Muhammad with a bomb as his turban, on which the pledge of the muslim faith was written. The judge wrote that it was fine for it to be published in a newspaper along with the journalist commentaries which made it clear there was no claim that all muslims were terrorists. The judge then contrasted that very cartoon being put on display all over France on billboards without any comment. That, the judge wrote, would have been hate speech, and he would have ruled against it.
So as you can see, this is a rather complex matter, which I am afraid Jerry oversimplified too much.
You clearly feel such laws are justifiable and that such speech must be prohibited.
But I, and I’m sure Jerry, are extremely offended by such laws. Freedom of speech isn’t about the freedom of other people to say what you like; it’s about the freedom of everybody to be able to say things nobody likes. Aside from incitement to immediate violence (whipping up a crowd / “Fire!” in a crowded theatre), the only acceptable negative consequences to speech, no matter how distasteful the content, is social disapprobation.
And that was the entire point of his post.
Cheers,
b&
/@
Denying the Shoa is not a matter of opinion which I may like or not. This is propagating misinformation by denying facts. Historically, the people doing that have been the political arm of violent groups bent on hurting jews. To stem those violence and those people, my ancestors felt it was necessary to defang their propaganda as well.
Perhaps in the US, any person who would hold negationist views would be ostracised to the point of being rendered harmless but this hasn’t been the case in France, shamefully enough, although that statement of mine would need to be qualified extensively depending on the period one is talking about.
correction: “To *stifle* those violence and those people …”
Writing in a foreign language late at night is fraught with peril!
So?
Basically every religion is in the business of propagating misinformation by denying facts. And a great many political careers are exercises in the same. Are you going to make religion and politics illegal?
So?
Historically, the people most likely to kill Jews in large numbers have been devout Christians acting in the name of Christ. Should we kill all the priests and firebomb all the churches as preemptive action to protect Jews?
All you’re doing is attempting to do unto them before they can do unto you. Madness that way lies.
Somebody wants to propagate misinformation, great. Let them. A great way to defang idiot lunacy is by letting the crazy nutjobs stand on their soapboxes and make royal asses of themselves.
And if they start to gather a following?
First, figure out what it is that the masses are responding to. If, for example, they’re looking for a scapegoat, see if you can figure out why they’re looking for a scapegoat; chances are good it’ll be because of fears borne from economic uncertainty, or some variation on that theme. If you can address that root cause, you’ll stop the madness without ever having to mention its public face.
And, second, independently, gather all your friends together and get even louder megaphones than the ones the crazies are carrying so you can shout them down. But be careful: if you don’t have all your ducks in a row, that sort of thing can backfire.
Cheers,
b&
It is my experience that people living in the US are shocked by the convoluted borders European laws draw around free speech, and you are yet another fine example of that! I am convinced that if I had grown up in the US, I would also think that the straight border drawn by your laws, with the realm of ideas on one side and the realm of earthly consequences on the other side(be it violence or job discrimination, etc) is the better way. But having lived all my life in Europe, I feel the other way around. Eventually, it may be that both system do work equivalently well as they shape mentality differently. Having never lived in the US, it is difficult for me to conclude as the devil is in the details. But, you can surely see that there is no way the American style of free speech could make its way into European legislation without sweeping cultural changes. If you allow me to use the language of physics, the current system of free speech in France, and I dare to say in other European countries from what I can judge, is in a stable energy well and it is therefore not going to change any time soon.
I’m living in Europe, but I’m not in favor for this paternalistic view of free speech.
I can see no real use for restrictions on free speech than to protect:
1) the rich and powerful and authority
2) stupid ideas
3) manipulation of voters
4) injustice
I think these things are very harmful for democratic societies. If bad and good ideas are visible people can make up their own minds and hopefully choose sensible.
Could it be that you are afraid of that?
Of course I’m not claiming that freedom of speech has always desirable outcomes. But to me it seems undesirable when it’s controlled by a monopolist like the state or a media-firm (see f.i. Turkey).
Also these restrictions hinder societies to adapt to new circumstances like migration and globalization. I think Europe has enough problems with that and maybe are missing honest debate.
There are drawings about jews in Charlie Hebdo. There’s even at least one in this week’s edition! It’s not forbidden to talk about or mock the jewish religion in France.
It is, however, forbidden to call for hate or violence against anyone, as individuals or as members of a group.
Europe has a history of rampant hate and violence. Such laws are meant to prevent rekindling the flame. No one in France has any problem with that. Honestly. Apart, of course, those who would want to call for hate or violence, such as the Front National.
In the United States, we have a history of violence against people of African descent (interestingly defined about the same way as Hitler defined Jews). Slavery, Jim Crow, KKK.
I’m not aware of any laws in the US against hate speech, but it has become a sure route to ostracism, and the end of any political aspirations.
That is pretty much the way it should be. Shunning is very effective. Sometimes it is applied inappropriately, but at least it doesn’t involve imprisonment.
These laws were passed as a reaction to WWII. Shunning did not prove very effective back then.
“Let the neo-Nazis have their marches (and anger the Jews); let the anti-Semites call me—as they did in junior high school—a “dirty Jew.” Let the media mock Jews and Judaism all they want. I will respond, when necessary, with words—a weapon far more effective than the muzzle.”
The tragic events of World War II are a grim reminder that raging anti-semitism can’t be stopped by words.
Be clear: are you saying that we should ban anti-semitic speech because Hitler wasn’t stopped by words?
Pol Pot wasn’t stopped (est. 2 mil deaths). Stalin wasn’t stopped (est. 7 mil deaths). By that logic, that means we need to ban any anti-intellectual and anti-capitalist speech too.
Yes, I think we should be nipping all hate speech in the bud. There’s no place for it in the civilized world.
The danger with that approach is that the definition of hate speech can be pretty elastic. An addict to conspiracy theories claiming that neither the holocaust nor 9/11 happened could easily be presented as a case of hate speech even if it’s just someone being stupid.
Where do we draw the line? I hate people who infibulate little girls. I hate governments that torture people for their opinions. If I write it on Facebook, isn’t that hate speech?
Homogenization of opinion is as dangerous to a civilized society as letting madmen rave can be. (At the very least, it allows us to identify the madmen).
Any law can be elastic (if badly written), but that isn’t a justification for getting rid of all laws.
The line is easily drawn. What is the purpose of free speech restrictions? To create a public space where everyone can feel safe and can live his or her life peacefully. That is why France applies a very strict separation of church and state, and why it forbids any speech that would call for persecution of a part of society.
It does not homogenize opinion, it prevents harmful opinions from threatening how we live together.
Sure, “raging anti-Semitism” can’t be stopped by words — once it has massed on the border with 30 armored divisions, a fleet of Stuka dive bombers (and a Kriegsmarine, to boot). Then, it’s time to call in the Army (& the Army Air Corp.), the Navy, the Marines, the Coast Guard, and whatever Merchant Marines and other irregulars you can muster. Failing that,
Even then, with all that fighting roaring around, it still ultimately comes down to speech,words to conquer anti-Semitism — or what do you think all those radio broadcasts to occupied Europe, including the one quoted above, were fighting to accomplish?
The key to defeating “raging anti-Semitism” is to join battle early, before it becomes a fighting war, when it’s still a battle of ideology, a war for hearts-and-minds — in other words, a war of words — one in which the most potent weapon against “raging anti-Semitism” is even-more-raging anti-anti-Semitism. (As Clausewitz observed, “[a hot] war is merely a continuation of policy by other means.”)
Or are you afraid that, in a straight-up, nose-to-nose battle in the marketplace of ideas between Nazism (since that’s the brand of anti-Semitism you alluded to here) and its opponent, that anti-Semitism won’t get its ass whupped everyday of the week — and twice on Sonntag? If so, you’re the most cynical cat I’ve come across in a long, long time.
As a young German boy growing up in a small Australian town I received a good share of anti-German sentiment and vilification. It hurt and the hurt has stayed with me. (My family migrated to Australia when I was aged 6.)
This hurt was exacerbated when the nuns at the Catholic school I attended decided my given name wasn’t “Christian enough” and decided I should be called “David” – a name that stuck until my late 20s, when, thanks to therapy, I reverted to using my given name.
The upshot is that life experiences like the above didn’t turn me into a religious zealot with a chip on my shoulder, but taught me the folly of belief in the unbelievable, including the belief that one bunch of humans are in any way superior or inferior to another.
If we purport to be responsible stewards of this planet, we can’t afford to hold to beliefs that have no basis in observable reality. That is my current understanding.
I agree with most of what is being said. However, I can’t help but feeling a bit upset by the mere fact of discussing about the limits or shortcomings or flaws in the laws about free speech in France or “the western world” in general at this very moment. Obviously it is a discussion than can and should be had, but I feel that right now, in the wake of what happened last week it simply is not the time nor the context. These days it wasn’t about angry mobs of ‘offended’ people causing riots or civil unrest (but harming no one) in response to CH cartoons; nor was it about some group or minority initiating legal proceedings annoyingly or otherwise. When two assassins gun down a bunch of journalists in cold blood, the imperfections (real or imaginary) of freedom of speech in France seem to me to be just irrelevant. It simply is not the question at issue any more. Morally, I feel as if, by accepting to engage in that conversation right now and in that precise context, we are somehow playing in the hands of those apologists who try to deflect responsibilities. As if those criminals somehow, in some way, perverted as it may seem, had a point… To me, they were not initiating a “debate” with and opening salvo. Not this debate at least.
I am sorry if my poor English does not allow me to express my idea in a better way. I am not criticizing the content of the arguments being expressed here.
“with AN opening salvo” not “and opening salvo”, of course.
It’s a moot point anyway. No one in France would consider pushing for a law to liberate hate speech. You can think it hypocritical, but it is a societal choice to not allow hate into public space.
Not to allow specific kinds of hate into public space. You allow others. That’s the hypocrisy.
Oh well. The Europeans shake their heads at Americans and don’t understand why we can’t handle boobs on TV and beer before age 21. Surely any civil person could deal with those things in a mature manner, right? The Americans shake their heads at the Europeans and don’t understand why you can’t handle neonazi web pages and non-inciteful hate speech. Surely any civil person could deal with these things in a mature manner, right?
History has taught us nazis are more dangerous than boobs?
No problems with your English. Just one clarification: Jerry wrote this article because several individuals accused him of being a hypocrite over his free speech position. He’s responding to those charges.
The timing isn’t coincidental, but neither (IMO) is the timing an attempt by him to take away from the events.
You’ve had a rough week, Jerry. I hope your weekend is better!
Jerry, your reach continues to grow: Seems to me there have recently been a lot of newcomers to the comments sections on your website.
Did I not say there would be more! I knew there would be.
Impressive. Let’s have another prophesy!
Tomorrow, Jerry will post something about cats.
I’ve a feline you’re right …
/@
LOL!
You’re welcome. Any time you need a straight person just give me a call.
all y’all full o’ woo or somethin’, makein’ these here pradictions? Oh, yeah, tomorrow’s Caturday!
> I’m aware that those laws come from a traumatic past and a sensitivity to newly-arriving cultural minorities.
Actually the word is not traumatic, but revengeful. It is a revengeful past.
I’m interested in whether these laws have had any positive effect, compared to say, the US.
How prevalent is antisemitism in Europe compared with the US?
According to this map:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/05/15/a-fascinating-map-of-the-worlds-most-and-least-racially-tolerant-countries/
the US is among the least racist countries in the world, including western Europe.
That’s nice to see. (And not unexpected. There really is some truth to that old melting pot metaphor.)
I’m not sure what you’re looking for. These laws do not prevent people for holding hateful thoughts or words in private. They’re making sure public space is not polluted by them.
“These laws do not prevent people for holding hateful thoughts or words in private.”
That’s their intent in the long-term. Stopping the public expression of some ideas has the goal of preventing their spread to the private thoughts of individuals.
I think the idea is rather to prevent hateful ideas from gaining political momentum.
Sub
I will shoot from the hip (pardon the metaphor) and argue that it is (should be) valid for governments to supress extreme anti-Semitic speech that might stimulate or condone violence to individuals. No jokes about lyching because lynching is no joke. Traditionally abused ethnic or geographic populations sometimes need special shielding. “Protection” from anti-Semitic speech about Israel or anti-Islamic talk about Saudi Arabia or Pakistan does not have the same standing.
Fuck, no! You’d muzzle some of the most powerful anti-racist speech every with such a law. Like Blazing Saddles, for example.
And, just as I will not silence Mel Brooks, I also not silence David Duke.
Nor would I have some politician nor judge deciding which is and isn’t okay, as that gives them far too much power.
No, no, no, no, no. Absolutely not.
Just like you can’t be only a little bit pregnant, you also can’t have free speech that’s only a little bit restricted.
People: the speech you should be fighting the hardest to protect is that speech you find most offensive to you personally, not your own favorite speech.
b&
I think the world’s vanished peoples tend to support my view, although I certainly agree with your concern over government abuse. Thank you for posting the hilarious Blazing Saddles videos. They were new to me. Perhaps they were censored where I live.
Assuming you mean Jews and Native Americans and Armenians and such people…first, they’ve not vanished; second, many of them are amongst the most passionate supporters of free speech you’ll find.
Like, for example, our host….
b&
Wild applause here.
“I am Charlie Coulibaly” implies solidarity with a murderer. It glorifies violence.
“I am Charlie” implies solidarity with non-violent victims of violence.
I think I see a difference between these two statements. I agree with the French.
I agree. It says that slaughtering Jewish people is laudable. I’m in the UK and we have a law against “glorifying terrorism”- maybe the French have something similar. Anyway, if it goes to court, Dieudonne can have the argument. Something that was denied to last week’s victims. Otherwise, I agree with Jerry. I want those arseholes out there, in the open, saying what they say so that we know who they are.
“Otherwise, I agree with Jerry. I want those arseholes out there, in the open, saying what they say so that we know who they are.”
If it’s OK to have those spouting hate speech in the open, why has Jerry recently banned one WEIT commenter after his hateful remarks towards Jews?
I rest my case.
A website, while generally open to the public, is not the public square. Remember, this is Jerry’s living room, in which he can choose whom to tolerate or not tolerate.
I was going to say the same but then thought I had missed some context. I don’t think I did.
The difference is analogous to me kicking someone out of my house for saying something that offends me. That person is free to say this offensive thing elsewhere. There is a difference between having control over your own space and being controlled by the state.
Surely no fair-minded person would view banning someone who just screams insults as suppressing free speech.
However, if you ban polite albeit robustly phrased challenges to your dearly held positions, then, to proclaim “I am a hard-liner when it comes to free speech” starts to ring hollow.
Well, I still see a certain contradiction here. When I say that I tolerate, for example, people who have a different sexual orientation, or different political views, or believe in God, I tolerate them in the public square as well as in my living room.
Anyway, I’m glad that Jerry banned the person who went on a hate speech rampage.
Free speech allows hate not to be swept under the rug; it allows it to be heard loud and clear. If we conceal the problem, then any solution will be more difficult to identify and to apply.
Our global system of punishment/restricting behaviour in general is ineffective, misguided, and ridiculous. Why? We do not know how to personalise our response to the offender (very much why medicine is such a challenge to practice, though the trend is in heading in the right direction of individualised treatment).
David Eagleman,in his focus on radically reforming the way offenders are treated, responds when he is opposed, that, OK, we may not know all that there is to know, but we got to change regardless, because at present if you are good looking, based on research, the jury and the judge will treat you with more leniency. En bref, we are clueless.
However there is considerable info on bullying. Bullying is when you are repeatedly subjected to verbal/physical abuse, often by more than one person at a time. Bullies can be emotionally calloused/dominating for the pure sake of dominating, that is, on the psychopathic spectrum, or they can be reactive because of various stresses. There are not two sides to bullying. There is only one, that of the person being bullied. However, a bully who does not care and an bully who can be reached psychologically call for different approaches as the former will not respond to punishment, shunning, telling them to stop, etc. Rather focusing on hate speech, let’s focus on bullying.
“Free speech allows hate not to be swept under the rug; it allows it to be heard loud and clear. If we conceal the problem, then any solution will be more difficult to identify and to apply.”
I don’t buy this argument.
Free speech doesn’t entail hate speech. Just like sexual freedom doesn’t entail child abuse and rape. By making these behaviors illegal we send a strong message to the society that there’s a no-no for sexual child abuse and rape. We don’t sweep the problems under the rug.
“…muzzle”
Intended or unintended double entendre? That was very good…
Kenan Malik agrees with you: Don’t Limit Speech in France:
/@
I think we have to separate the speech from the act the speech carries, because they are not one and the same. The “yelling fire in a crowded theater” becomes perfectly acceptable if you warn the audience beforehand that there isn’t actually a fire and you have another reason to yell “fire”. That’s speech separated from the act. The same act (starting a stampede) can be accomplished by setting off a smoke bomb in the theater without using any speech. Then speech separated from the act deserves absolute protection, but the corresponding act may or may not be legal. For example, it’s not like anyone seriously thinks that verbally offering a bribe to a politician or a judge constitutes protected free speech.
That’s a good distinction, but I can see a form of loophole. Supposing, for the sake of argument, all racists were allowed to spread their misinformation, especially into areas with low education, and inspire hatred against certain races. If a speeches-inspired racist or a mob of them then go out and assault members of said race, how much responsibility can we attribute to the people spreading the misinformation? They did not perform the action, and yet it seems clear to me that the action was a result, however indirect, of their speech. Yet, if speech and act are separate, we’d be arresting the symptoms and impotent to stop the cause. Is there a way around this?
I’m not sure how this is different from what Fox News and other right-wing media do. Saying that all black people live on handouts, pay no taxes, are thugs, etc., is not the same as dead-on seriously calling on eradicating all non-white people – and the latter can be illegal but former should not. You’re right that this is just fighting the symptoms and not the cause, but it’s actually pretty much how judicial system works: drinking is legal but drunk driving is not, wishing you could kill someone is legal but acting on it is not.
I’m with you Jerry, well stated as usual!
While I agree with you that censorship is wrong, I have a problem with this common apologia for Holocaust deniers:
“denial of the Holocaust forces us to re-examine precisely what the hard evidence for the Holocaust is”
How many times do we have to go through the exercise before we accept the answer we have consistently gotten? How much time must we spend re-proving what has been examined and proven over and over again? We accept the judgement of experts in virtually every area of life, so why do we, in effect, reject the conclusions of the Holocaust experts? What makes the Holocaust so different that we must repeatedly examine it? Because there are nuts who deny it? Should we keep re-examining the shape of the planet because there are flat-earthers? And how often must we re-examine the hard evidence for the Holocaust? Every day? Week? Month? Year? Decade? Century? And what do we do when the physical evidence eventually decomposes with time? Change our minds and join the deniers?
Rather than continually re-examining the hard evidence of the Holocaust, we should accept it and require extraordinary proof from the deniers. That’s how we treat other hard facts and their deniers. The Holocaust is so well established that it is reasonable to accept it as true until and unless extraordinary new evidence is found that refutes it. And at this point, what possible evidence, except that of a massive conspiracy, could refute all the hard evidence of the Holocaust?
My opinion is that most of the people who deny the Holocaust do so because they want it to happen again. I think it’s wrong to enable or validate them. Gratuitously re-examining accepted hard evidence just because there are deniers is playing into their hands by implicitly suggesting that there is some doubt about the evidence. It keeps a monstrous, bogus claim alive in respectable forums, when it should be dismissed as a kind of hate speech, unworthy of serious consideration by decent people. It is a form of racism masquerading as science, like the whole “black have lower IQs” scam.
In short: examine new evidence because it is new, and old evidence if there is reason to believe the last analysis was wrong or incomplete. But don’t just keep re-examining accepted facts because there are people who deny them. Make the Holo-Hoaxers the pariahs they deserve to be. They’ve had 70 years to make their case, and haven’t. It’s time to stop wasting time on their evil lies.
Another way of looking at this: some errors are worth repeating because they are illustrative. There’s a good reason biology textbooks (and books about evolution generally) typically exhume Lamarckianism, an utterly discredited theory, only to discredit it still more: one learns something about how evolution does work by means of the contrast with this particular picture of how it doesn’t.
Not all false theories have this useful didactic purpose – some are mere idiotic distractions. Until a historian tells me otherwise, I’d put holocaust denial in that category.
I suspect that when Hitchens said “re-examine”, he meant it not so much in the sense of “reconsider in a fresh light”, rather more as “refreshing one’s memory”. Criminalizing Holocaust denial turns the facts of historical events into dogma, which serves little useful purpose in the short term, and becomes problematic in the long term.
You are a class act, PCC, and I expected nothing less.
“…no speech should be banned or criminalized save speech meant to incite imminent violence.”
That is what hate speech is (in my modest opinion), what hate speech laws try to prevent (not ‘offence’, but violence} and precisely where the problem lies. When does speech incite to violence?
With hindsight we know now that eg. Radio Mille Colline’s characterisation of Tutsi’s as cockroaches, *de-humanising* them, was instrumental in the genocide.
Jews descendants from pigs and dogs? Trees calling for the jews behind them to be killed? Blacks are baboons? ‘Kill the boer!’?
The only good Indian is a dead Indian? X are vermin? etc. etc.
I would consider most of the above incitement to violence, since de-humanising fellow humans. The latter destroys inhibitions and hence allows for violence.
Although I see your point, I’m not sure if I fully agree with you in this one. I think a lot depends on what we consider hate-speech and what constitutes incitement to violence.
I disagree with what you call hate speech. My definition of speech that violates free speech (and I think the US courts agree) is speech that calls for IMMEDIATE violence. Calling Jews apes and pigs, or blacks baboons, is not a call for immediate violence. Maybe it “erodes inhibitions,” but’s that a side effect, not something that is like saying, “Let’s go kill all the Jews in Daley Plaza now.” IN fact, I don’t think saying that “Jews should be exterminated,” or “Blacks should be sent back to Africa” (a theme of the old Amerian Nazi Party under LIncoln Rockwell) is, or should be, illegal either. The sentiments are reprehensible but are not intended to get people to go out and kill Jews or blacks on the spot. Maybe you disagree with me on this one, but the courts, at least in the US, agree. If you’re going to say that illegal speech is speech that erodes inhibitions and might create violence, then you’re on a very slippery slope indeed. Yes, that speech is reprehensible, but that’s the kind of speech that needs protection.
Jerry, I agree there is a kind of slippery slope there, hate speech laws can easily be -and I suppose are- abused. I admit I could be wrong in my support for anti hate-speech laws.
My view may be poisoned by the poison of ‘Radio Mille Collines’ in the early 90’s, resulting in a horrendous genocide (I can still not keep it dry when talking/writing/thinking about it). After 20+ years, it is still simmering in the eastern DRC (if ever you travel to Rwanda, please visit some of the sites).
I think we fully agree that it is about incitement, not about taking offence. My point is that systematically de-humanising certain groups, describing them in terms of ‘vermin’, is not just reprehensible, but very *dangerous*.
I did not put that very well there, it is not just ‘Radio Mille Collines’ (that particular genocide is too close to me to be objective). I mean in nearly all genocides the demonising/’verminising’ of the target group is a constant and pertinent feature.
Would the Shoah have been possible if not for the RC sustained description of jews as ‘Christ murderers’ (demonic) or Luther’s equally despicable anti-semitism? Adder-brood (well, that is ‘vermin, ne?), if I remember correctly.
I can’t think of an example where it was not. Possibly the Armenian genocide, but then, hey, they were Kafirs after all, close enough to vermin anyway…
Another exception may be the Mongols under Chengis Khan, they used genocide as a terrorising tactic, facilitating surrender. But that is an aside.
The question is: how immediate the threat of violence/genocide in hate-speech must be to qualify for censure? How to assess? I have no good answer (and I suspect none of us has).
Sorry to go on about this, and I hope I’m not derailing (if so please delete this), but I’m trying to understand the basics of genocide. On the ‘vermin’ front: the description as ‘vermin’ would have an evolutionary basis. We have no compunction about exterminating ‘vermin’ and ‘parasites’. To describe the competitor or target group as vermin or parasites facilitates uninhibited aggression. I’m not really repeating myself here, I hope, but in evolution it does make sense to exterminate those, me seems.
Re-reading my posts I realise I’m not rational here, I lost friends and a lover in 1994, They just ‘disappeared’. Maybe they are still alive, I don’t know, but I guess not. When considering the rapes, tortures and dismembering …. I still cannot face it after 20 years,. I’m protecting my keyboard with a towel now.
I think hate-speech is evil, profoundly evil. It all comes back, I’m way to emotional now, but I really think hate-speech should be prohibited. And that would particularly include demonising/verminising target groups without *imminent* calls to kill.
I think we agree to differ here, although I admit you may be right and I might be wrong..
+1
Hate speech is used by violent manipulators in order to make others do their violence — and time in jail for that violence — for them. Those particularly vulnerable to such charismatic manipulations share in the guilt for any such actions, but they, too, are victims, weaponized weapons, as it were. To really stop extreme inhumanity, laws are needed to aim responsibility back at the manipulators of violence, those who know the pen is mightier than the sword, because the pen actually controls those would be stupid enough to needless raise such swords.
”
Your correspondents’ assertions bespeak an ignorance of many events, including the Skokie Affair. Yes, there, some faint-hearted, fair-weather pseudo-free-speech proponents (including some Jews) got week-kneed and turned tail on the First Amendment (some going so far as to resign their ACLU membership). But many others — including many stout-hearted Jewish ACLE members, standing as implacable as Daniel in the Lions Den, facing down loathing on one side and the disapprobation of their own communities on the other — charged forward in robust support of full, flush free-speech rights, as intended by those who enacted the Bill of Rights. A proud day for Jews, a proud day for America, and a proud day it was for our Constitution.
Given your interlocutors’ utter ignorance of this history, they are doomed (per Santayana’s apothegm) to repeat it many times over. (If history’s first go-round is tragedy, and it’s second farce, where do these dilettantes go from there — Reality TV? Maury? Springer? — all, the occasional haunts of neo-Nazis themselves.)
I agree with what is said by M.Coyne but I’ll add a nuance. Dieudonné wasn’t charged because of hate speech. In fact, he won several trials that were intended by jewish organizations for anti-Semitism in France.
The difference today is that he was charged for “apologie du terrorisme”.
In other words, Dieudonné isn’t charged for anti-semitism, he is charged because he endorsed terrorism by saying Je suis Charlie Coulibaly…
Great article.
I’m not sure about speech causing direct and real harm. For instance when the pope would call out for beating up satirists, I think he should be prosecuted. But only when there is a chance that anyone takes him seriously.
I agree completely with the following:
“In a liberal society, we have found that the harm principle provides reasons for limiting free speech when doing so prevents direct harm to rights. This means that very few speech acts should be prohibited. The offense principle has a wider reach than the harm principle, but it still recommends very limited intervention in the realm of free speech. All forms of speech that are found to be offensive but easily avoidable should go unpunished. This means that all forms of pornography and most forms of hate speech will escape punishment. If this argument is acceptable, it seems only logical that we should extend it to other forms of behavior. Public nudity, for example, causes offense to some people, but most of us find it at most a bit embarrassing, and it is avoided by a simple turn of the head. The same goes with nudity, sex, and coarse language on television. Neither the harm or the offense principles as outlined by Mill support criminalizing bigamy or drug use, nor the enforcement of seat belts, crash helmets and the like.”
from:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/#JohStuMilHarPri
Oops, missed your comment on 32.
I think I might have a problem parsing this sentence:
“I think that no speech should be banned or criminalized save speech meant to incite imminent violence.”
Reblogged this on Yan D, Ericolon: Random Fudge-ups and commented:
its despicable that so many of the europeans who rallied in #jesuischarlie will have also supported their local hate speech laws, holocaust denial speech laws, as well as agreeing with the french police for arresting an islamic comedian for his facebook post on the charlie hebdo shooting.
in the past few days, I thought this was a free speech issue. and it is. terrorism cannot be allowed to limit free speech. But a second idea comes to mind: France has hate speech laws. And they’ve made arrests based on those laws. So let me expand upon the first sentiment: NOTHING can be allowed to limit free speech.
If these french were serious about their freedom, they should start by eliminating the hate speech laws, laws that persecute people for opinion.
I hate to say this, but seems like in the matters of free speech, USA might be #1. There’s a lot of things society has agreed are wrong, but the LAW is not supposed to prosecute you for mere opinion expression.
Shit needs to be get togethered, Otherwise, #jesuischarlie will have only been less than noble war propoganda in the battle of racial tensions – “we will defend our right to insult you, but we will also attack your right to insult us.” that ain’t right.
I’m not really with you there.
As posted above, hate-speech is the ‘glued’ companion to genocide. One could say: no hate-speech, no genocide, Although I admit that maybe this is overstating it a bit, it has cause in history. Nevertheless…
Consider the arguments Nazis made against Jews.
If the Nazis made them in a modern, secular democracy where free speech is upheld, the arguments for genocide would’ve be disproven and torn apart, and thus would Nazism.
But if the Nazis had hate speech laws (which they don’t need because they didn’t have free speech), any argument against genocide would have been arrested for hate speech against the Nazi party, because hate speech laws are against anything that it finds offensive.
Ignorance is the actual glued companion to genocide, and hate speech laws (aka censorship) can cause as much ignorance as hate speech itself.
Bottom line: There shouldn’t be any excuse to limit free speech.
Distinctions, like the one stated above are important for our civilization. If something is so offensive that one is compelled to do violence that person needs to rethink his/her life.
I would draw the line at the incitementt of violence through slander and fostering hate. I’d censor a modern Volkisscher Beobachter.
“Imminent violence.”
We, on this website, are at the better educated, more critically thinking end of humanity’s bell curve. Too many generations of others are undereducated, and the less they know, the more certain they are.
Their ignorance leads to times of cognitive dissonance, resulting in fear and/or discouragement. Either can lead to frustration, morphed into anger for its sense of strength, and targeted at victims they can beat — unless their goal is martyrdom, in which case their targets include those who will beat them.
Constantine oversaw the initiation of antisemitism in the Catholic Church (read “Constantine’s Sword” and/or watch the documentary). Europe has nearly 2,000 years of this indoctrination to resolve.
It’s only been about three generations since the USA traded “E Pluribus Unum” for “In God We Trust”; added the same to our currency; and turned our Pledge from “indivisible with liberty and justice for all” to “under God” first — the one thing that sure to divide and lead to injustices.
They, too, are merely words, but there are now three generations of Dominionists who, whether they call themselves that or not, believe God created America to give them the personal opportunity to take over the world “for God and Country”, including military members of all ranks and infiltrated into all service branches who believe God put them there to hasten the Second Coming.
We either wait until the gullible do the violence and turn them into “righteous martyrs for their cause” by putting all the blame at their feet, knowing others will follow, or we look to the charismatics whom they follow, the puppet masters behind the scenes, those who use free speech to work the malleable and direct the gullable over time, generation by generation.
Yes, my first choice is to so educate every every human that manipulation isn’t likely, but how likely is that ever to happen?
JAC, I’m sorry you were called names in high school. Before kindergarten, my brother and I were frequently attacked for being Jews by a much older child. My brother had to pull a rusty dart out of my shoulder, one day, and I was punched in the gut, doubled over, unable to breath, another. In 5th grade, outside Washington, D.C., my elementary teacher manipulated the rest of the class into ganging up on me, while she sat a few feet away, pretending to see nothing — day after day. In residency training, in Boston, MA, I was given call the full holiday weekends of Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Years, on grounds that everyone else was Christian and needed to be free to spend holidays with their families — even if it meant putting patients at risk, while I was so severely overworked. And, I have been targeted by a military hospital commander who, in light of education intended to prevent military suicides, used his position of power to try to cause at least one, mine, as a handwritten note in a confidential chart made clear.
You and I are about the same age, and our geographies have come very close and even overlapped, at times, though we’ve never met. “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.” I was trained to repeat that, when I was a child. The antisemites responded by breaking out the proverbial and sometimes very real sticks and stones.
*applause*
There should be no law preventing people for being idiots (and bearing the social consequences)
Reblogged this on The non conformer's Canadian Weblog.